zlacker

>>fugled+(OP)
Well this definitely won't get exploited at all or lead to new strict limits on what Harfbuzz/WASM can do

>>bastie+YR
WASM sandboxing is pretty good! Together with the presumably very limited API with which this can communicate with the outside world, I wouldn't be too concerned.

To me, it's a great reminder that the line between well-sandboxed turing-complete execution environments and messy implementations of decoders for "purely declarative" data formats can be quite blurry.

Said differently, I'd probably trust Harfbuzz/WASM more than the average obscure codec implementation in ffmpeg.

>>lxgr+dU
Is there scientific proof of above claim such as "WASM sandboxing is pretty good!" ?

At least most if not all ffmpeg decoders and demuxers are fuzzed all the time and any found issue is addressed.